Recent Topics
Ipad covers
by daves87rs
28 minutes 15 seconds ago
Did I screw myself...
by NoNameJoe
Yesterday at 10:15 PM
Careers advice for Teenagers.
by Shannow
Yesterday at 09:09 PM
Mobil 0w40 $25.99 Cdn
by tcp71
Yesterday at 08:55 PM
Mixing a quart of PP 0w40 with Rotella T6 5w30
by slacktide_bitog
Yesterday at 08:51 PM
02 Censors?
by lawnguy
Yesterday at 08:06 PM
Canadian Rebates for Rotella T-5 and T-6
by Snagglefoot
Yesterday at 07:58 PM
Car buying and lessons learned
by madRiver
Yesterday at 07:52 PM
Check out my tree
by Chris142
Yesterday at 07:52 PM
New Starter Test Report Says Solenoid Fail
by chevys10
Yesterday at 07:43 PM
Fram Tough Guard Air filters for Canadians
by Snagglefoot
Yesterday at 06:40 PM
Recommendations for a Repossed Vehicle
by Astro_Guy
Yesterday at 06:36 PM
Added Bluetooth Audio Streaming
by The Critic
Yesterday at 05:27 PM
Lowest NOACK Synthetic 5W30 for Non - Turbo GDI ?
by ChrisD46
Yesterday at 04:57 PM
Dad commited suicide yesterday
by motor_oil_madman
Yesterday at 03:56 PM
What tool is needed to remove a hub bolt?
by llmercll
Yesterday at 03:55 PM
1998 Nissan Frontier chatter/driveline issues...
by MGPD03
Yesterday at 03:45 PM
2018 Chevy Equinox 1.5T mini-review
by road_rascal
Yesterday at 03:21 PM
Aftermarket belts Infiniti G35
by mb32
Yesterday at 02:58 PM
Mixing, example: Valvoline syn pre and post d1G2
by wemay
Yesterday at 02:56 PM
Newest Members
mowermon, Slashdotfx, Dilly, Amersham, Irene
64801 Registered Users
Who's Online
46 registered (bbhero, 1JZ_E46, BAJA_05, 1WildPig, ATex7239, 5 invisible), 815 Guests and 31 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
64801 Members
68 Forums
282040 Topics
4708706 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#839910 - 02/21/07 06:39 AM B50 Particle Count Results!
md_lucky_13 Offline

Registered: 01/14/05
Posts: 302
Loc: Idaho
I finally got around to doing it!

I've been wanting to do a particle count for a long time now on the B50 bypass filter. There has been hours and hours of debate, and probably thousands of posts on the subject.

This particle count was done on my 2001 Dodge diesel (cummins B series). I wanted to really put this filter to the test, so this is the hardest driving condition of the year for me. SEVERAL Sub 0 starts without being able to plug in. Extensive (45 mins +) idle. Towing snowmachines up and down the mountains.. etc. etc.

My truck also has several after-market parts, including 2 stacked fuel chips. Like I said, I put this thing to the test.

The actual oil analysis can be view here:

Here are the numbers:

ISO Code (2) ... 14/11
NAS 1638 Class ... 0
ISO Code (3) ... 15/14/11
>= 2 Micron ... 378
>= 5 Micron ... 140
>= 10 Micron ... 38
>= 15 Micron ... 15
>= 25 Micron ... 3
>= 50 Micron ... 0
>= 100 Micron ... 0

5,789 Miles on oil, 79,775 miles on engine.

This is the only comparison I could really find..

Not like this is going to be ending any debates, but is that lil ole $6.99 B50 filter worth it?

#839911 - 02/21/07 05:25 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: md_lucky_13]
tjbeggs Offline

Registered: 02/05/07
Posts: 61
Loc: Silver Lake Dunes, MI
So help educate a new guy who can't see the comparison test and doesn't reall know what those numbers mean other than the actual particle and counts. THose number look good to me but I have a very untrained eye. I am considering installing the B164 (same filter just bigger) on my 97 ford powerstroke. Give me your interpretation with predjudice

#839912 - 02/21/07 06:09 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: tjbeggs]
johnd Offline

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 621
Loc: Austin, TX
It appears to be a terrific filter for particles sized larger than 25 micron.

#839913 - 02/21/07 09:30 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: tjbeggs]
md_lucky_13 Offline

Registered: 01/14/05
Posts: 302
Loc: Idaho

So help educate a new guy who can't see the comparison test

Well, this is a LONG, on-going debate about bypass filtration. There are basically 3 camps: Toilet Paper, After-Market (amsoil, oilguard, etc), and DIY (Do It Yourself).

Without bringing back too much information and debate, I can boil my argument down to this (which is 100% unbiased, no opinion what-so-over, never argued my point before this very moment.. )

I feel that the toilet paper and amsoil systems are not cost effective. Toilet paper elements DO A BETTER JOB at cleaning oil then any other option. However.. I say (and this is where the debate will NEVER end) that the submicronic filtration is pointless. A human red blood cell is 8um (8 micron) in size. Wear metals are around 15um. You really don't want particles bigger then 15um floating around in your oil. Most full flow filters are 15-25um. This particular B50 bypass filter is 2um nominal and 8um absolute (or so the ratings say).

If, for example, I was using a toilet paper element.. I had 7,000 miles on a highly fueled and modified diesel engine. I imagine I would be replacing my toilet paper every 3,000 miles.. Maybe 3,500. That means, I would have had to replace the toilet paper 2 times and add 2 quarts of make-up oil. A quart of synthetic 5/40 is about.. what.. $5? That means to have nearly no effect on engine wear, I would have spent an extra $4 (give or take) on this oil change interval alone....

Isn't that much dough, no doubt. But, lets say I owned a fleet of vehicles.. Then it starts to add up.

I'm fond of amsoil products, just not their price. Amsoil would probably also product marginally better numbers then the B50 on the particle count. But, their elements are $30 a pop!! No where near cost effective. Most other after-market filters that require a pre-made element are going to do the exact same.

The cost benefit just isn't there with the other filter options, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. Toilet Paper is the best bypass filter you can purchase, but the cost to operate for what little difference you get in engine oil cleanness is a mute point.

To prove my point.... Here is a HUGE compilation of particle counts using various other bypass filtration methods. The smaller the number in any of these, the better the job the bypass filter is doing. As you will see, there are a few filters that will do better then the B50 (or B164). But, we can discuss how much installing a B164 and the upkeep for it is worth compared to any of these options listed.

Am I being provocative? You bet. There are a lot of highly intelligent people on this board that I fully hope come in here and pick everything I have posted apart... That is the beauty of this whole site. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you will learn more here then you could anywhere else.... Plus, it's a cold, wet, miserable day at work.

Quoted from MSPARKS:

This three-part number is an International Standards Organization Code to illustrate the level of cleanliness of the hydraulic fluid in the unit. The numbers are logarithmic representations of the total number of particles greater than two (2) microns (first number), greater than five (5) microns (second number), and greater than 15 microns (third number) in a one milliliter sample. The larger the ISO Code, the more contaminants, the more potential for wear.


added in edit: Note the above statement is for hydraulic sytems which are about 100 times cleaner than combustion engine. Hence the reason my ISO code is higher than the recommended. I feel that my ISO code is very good as it's pretty darned close to the "standard" for a hydraulic system.

04 CRV 20k
ISO Code (2): 18/14
NAS 1638 Class: 3
ISO Code (3): 18/17/15
>=2 Microns: 3535
>=5 Microns: 1309
>=10 Microns: 362
>=15 Microns: 140
>=25 Microns: 33
>=50 Microns: 3
>=100 Microns: 0

Gary K7GLD has this one available:

Frantz bypass filter. Amsoil full flow filter on the left, fleetguard filter on the right. Says both runs are approximately 5,000 miles.

Frantz Bypass Filter, 15/40, 9000 miles:

ISO Particle Count: 17/16/13,
Particles were:
>2 micron = 1,666,
>5 mu = 617 mu,
>10mu = 170,
>15 mu = 66,
>25 mu = 15,
>50 mu = 1,
>100 mu = 0.

”This is from my full flow PureOne that was in service 9k/13m”

Frantz Bypass Filter, 5,000 Miles:

“I had a particle count done analysis done and the results are as follows:

>=2 microns - 6413
>=5 microns - 2376
>=10 microns - 657
>=15 microns - 254
>=25 microns - 60
>=50 microns - 5
>=100 microns - 0

The oil used was Amsoil Series 2000 0w30, miles on oil 5012, Amsoil bypass filtration.”

That is most of the particle counts and information I could find on the site. I HIGHLY encourage people with particle counts to post a comparison.


#839914 - 02/21/07 11:21 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: md_lucky_13]

I'm only going to add that while the cost of the Amsoil unit is pricey at $35, you can also run them at least 30k before changing them. I have 20k on mine right now and still get good flow through the filter. Going to change this weekend and run it another 10k. I was told by an Amsoil tech that as long as the filter still flows oil, it is still filtering as they have no internal bypass typically found in a oil filter. I might run this one until it actually is an EaBP100...before my "prefered customer" status expires, I got to get a couple more...

And one other thing to remember is that sampling methods can and do vary. The only way you can compare multiple UOAs is if the sample was collected by the same person using the same method. I see the variance in environmental samples everyday...if the same person samples the same well (talking ground water), they get consistant results; but if you have multiple people sampling the same well, the results will be all over the place.

In our instance, you might have one person sampling from the bypass filter's return, another sampling from the oil pan's plug after it ran a while (both the car and the oil), and yet another that collected the oil from the pan as soon as the plug was loose after the car sat for a week...and maybe someone just got unlucky and had a bunch of dirt fall into their container...

While they are nice to look at, there can be a lot of difference in UOA just by the way the sample was collected...


#839915 - 02/22/07 05:04 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results!
okiedokie Offline

Registered: 12/17/06
Posts: 133
Loc: SD
MD, I am not impressed with the effort to justify your B50 bypass system by comparing particle results with some selective absolutely unrelated historical data, as sdeeter suggests. If you are happy with those numbers in the 2 to 10 micron range, then fine. It's better than nothing, but not much. Just don't try to make out like it is something it isn't. A good bypass filter it is not.

#839916 - 02/22/07 06:51 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: okiedokie]
md_lucky_13 Offline

Registered: 01/14/05
Posts: 302
Loc: Idaho
Then, please, by all means, present some numbers from these "good bypass" filters that are so far above and beyond this little B50 that actually JUSTIFY their cost.

These are not selective, and they are not unrelated. These are all the particle counts I found available in the bypass section over the past 5 years.

With all the data available, please help me out here. If I'm trying to make this bypass filter out to be something that it isn't... Then what exactly are we looking at here?

#839917 - 02/22/07 07:23 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: md_lucky_13]
okiedokie Offline

Registered: 12/17/06
Posts: 133
Loc: SD
Show us YOUR numbers from BEFORE installing the Baldwin, or remove it and do a run without it to show YOUR comparison numbers, then we'll talk.

Let's talk science here, not speculation.

#839918 - 02/22/07 08:57 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: okiedokie]
md_lucky_13 Offline

Registered: 01/14/05
Posts: 302
Loc: Idaho
I see.

So mass producted, highly marketed bypass filters designed to work on a variety of vehicles have no place being compared .... on different... vehicles?

You lost me.

#839919 - 02/22/07 09:04 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: md_lucky_13]
Tempest Offline

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 10611
Loc: Las Vegas NV
I think what he is trying to say is that all engines produce different numbers. An engine just like yours could produce very different particle counts, so comparison with them is not as useful. He is asking for history on your unit to compare...I think.
“Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.” --- Henry Rosovsky

#839920 - 02/22/07 09:25 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: Tempest]
TimVipond Offline

Registered: 12/19/06
Posts: 1115
Loc: Sugar Land, TX
The new Amsoil EaO Bypass filters claim "AMSOIL EaBP Filters have an efficiency of 98.7 percent at two microns." And "When used in conjunction with AMSOIL motor oil and an AMSOIL EaO or Donaldson Endurance™ filter, the EaBP should be changed every other full-flow filter change up to 60,000 miles."
To purchase Amsoil products, please contact one of the BITOG Amsoil Site Sponsors: Pablo, or Gary Allan.

#839921 - 02/22/07 09:31 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: Tempest]
md_lucky_13 Offline

Registered: 01/14/05
Posts: 302
Loc: Idaho
Don't get me wrong. I get exactly what he is saying. However, I'm not trying to make an isolated, single case/statement that MY b50 works well on MY truck.

I'm saying plain as day: the B50 is the most cost efficient bypass filter that a DYI person can get.

If you are only concerned about isolated, single vehicle numbers.. Then dump the hype about amsoil. Dump the hype about toilet paper bypass filters.

The goal of a bypass filter is pretty freaking simple.. Clean the oil. Here is the argument:

I don't care what vehicle is in consideration. The alternatives to the B50 are not cost effective since they do not give any SIGNIFICANT number improvements over the B50. We are talking about filters designed to work on nearly any make/model of vehicle or engine... If you want to claim that a toilet paper or amsoil bypass filter does anything, then you should be comfortable presenting numbers from ANY vehicle that it is installed on... And those numbers will be marginally better then the B50.

Simply put:
Are bypass filters effective?

If they are effective, how do we know that?

Do we need test, re-test to confirm the results?

You talk science.. This is a simple validity test. You want the highest validity, so your trying to isolate down to a single vehicle.. Which is fine. High validity. With all numbers, you could easily say "on a single 2001 dodge diesel the numbers improve/did not improve X amount.."

But that proves nothing on the broad scheme of things.

Answer me this.. If we cannot compare vehicles with different engines/driving styles/oil/sample methods.. Why do we even have ISO codes then?

#839922 - 02/22/07 09:54 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: md_lucky_13]
okiedokie Offline

Registered: 12/17/06
Posts: 133
Loc: SD
You can can compare anything you want. But you have to narrow down the control variables if you actually want to measure effectiveness. How do you really know how well it is working on your Dodge? Those numbers don't look like anything to brag about to me.

Those engines are very easy on oil and the full flow filter should be around a 20 micron or less nominal anyway. I believe the Wix spec'd for that application is rated at 17. You might not be catching much of anything with that Baldwin for all you know.

Edited by okiedokie (02/22/07 10:20 PM)

#839923 - 02/22/07 11:38 PM Re: B50 Particle Count Results! [Re: md_lucky_13]


Then, please, by all means, present some numbers from these "good bypass" filters that are so far above and beyond this little B50 that actually JUSTIFY their cost.

How can I provide comparison when my oil analysis will be on my truck, and not yours??? Before and after on YOUR truck would be a comparison. Comparing the results of my CRD emissions nightmare to those of your non-emissions non-CRD would prove what?


#839924 - 02/23/07 02:10 AM Re: B50 Particle Count Results!
Gary Allan Offline

Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 39806
Loc: Pottstown, PA
I really don't care whether two engines are used or two different filters. It's the cut off level that makes it for me.

When talking particle counts the sticky at the top of the forum.

One filter




Which one is better? In this situation have no idea what the application was ..and what the duration was. Now there are holes in this view ..but I'd say that, at least at some point, the lower filter was far superior to the upper filter.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >